What's the point of Barnes' Opening [1. f3], and what makes people think that Grob's Opening is bad?

#42

1) putting your knight on e5 requires some level of control on the position

attacking the king wherever he is in general is a decent strategy however, but can be defended if done crudely (without control on the center)

2) 

3) you can discuss with tygxc if their logic is insufficient or not, i leave here

4) tygxc said white can play f4 as the second move after f3 to anything except e5 and that it would work (i think?)

you agree here, so this is done

5) i do not want to prove grobs opening as a black win

you can go to databases and engines to find the best evaluations for white in the grobs opening and maybe play those

6) there is always atleast one good move

if the definition of good move is "move which keeps the evaluation of the position the same", then yes

if it is "move which cannot be losing" then no, in losing positions all moves lose by definition (this may or may not include 1 g4 and i do not care about continuing that discussion)

7) a) the knight on g1 is awkward

b) the center of the board can be attacked with enough pieces on the board (or so i've heard)

if white moves the e or d pawns then the kings position becomes weaker

not to forget the h4-e1 diagonal

c) i meant for the exchange, my mistake

d) blacks 0-0 is safe

for white, neither castling is that safe, and the center can be attacked

e) less development *and* less space, sorry

(-1) + (-1) = -2

f)

just play g3 then

g) yes i am slightly against gambits

however, in the danish white has more space, more development, initiative and targets to attack

black is the one who might be stuck in the center

the danish offers more than the grob does

h) grob and danish cant easily be compared like this

black is arguably the real gambiter in the grob here, with attacking chances, more development for less material

and if we're talking about the non fritz grob, then question: what compensation does white have for the pawn

i have already stated the compensation present in the danish

8) if i search fritz i am getting only the engine, it is probably some old master named fritz who used this opening

9) if not 0-0, then what

To tygxc,

1. "You can't say that we fully know the effectiveness of a chess move without the whole branch." ++ Yes I can. 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses for white, no whole branch needed. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, no whole branch needed. 1 g4? loses for white, no whole branch needed.

Then, prove your scaling.

[1. e4 Nf6 2. Qh5?] sacrifices 9 points for (apparent) no advantage.

[1. e4 e5 2. Ba6] sacrifices 3 points for (apparent) no advantage.

[1. g4] doesn't sacrifice any material.

[1. g4 d5 2. Bg2] sacrifices a pawn for control of a diagonal.

There is a point for some moves, but not for others.

2. "Memorising moves gives you more time to think on more complicated positions"
++ The better player always beats the better theoretician. The better player must invest time to find moves while the better theoretician still relies on his memory. However, as soon as the better theoretician is out of his book knowledge, he has to find his moves himself and he makes mistakes. Moreover, the better player is in a state of deep concentration as he has to find theory moves, while the theoretician is in a lazy remembering mode instead of in a concentrated thinking mode. The Honfi-Tal and Capablanca-Marshall games illustrate that.

a. The better player always beats the better theoretician.

Then, the better theoretician is not using his time to his advantage.

b. The better player must invest time to find moves while the better theoretician still relies on his memory. However, as soon as the better theoretician is out of his book knowledge, he has to find his moves himself and he makes mistakes.

Again, the theoretician is not using his time to his advantage.

c. Moreover, the better player is in a state of deep concentration as he has to find theory moves, while the theoretician is in a lazy remembering mode instead of in a concentrated thinking mode.

The theoretician only saves time for later, not being lazy. Many animals save their food for later, for when they need it, so we can save our time for when we need it. A lazy theoretician who does not study far enough is as bad as a lazy player who does not read the board far enough.

(d. The Honfi-Tal and Capablanca-Marshall games illustrate that.)

(I don't know the situation of these games, so I can't comment on them.)

3. "Grob's Opening has been standing for so long as World's Worst Opening" ++ Yes, 1 g4? is the worst of the 20 possible first white moves and the only one that loses by force with best play by both sides. However, at lower levels and in fast time controls it is playable in practice, as more mistakes will follow from both sides, so it does not matter you make the first mistake, as long as you do not make the last.

Magnus Carlsen is not at a lower level. And he played it. So Grob's Opening is playable at higher levels. He also played Barnes' Opening before, as well.

Either he's at a lower level, or you can play Grob's Opening at higher levels.

To Ilampohzhil25,

1. putting your knight on e5 requires some level of control on the position | attacking the king wherever he is in general is a decent strategy however, but can be defended if done crudely (without control on the center)

My opponent's king will not always be in the centre. So neither will my attack be.

2. [game sc]

This strategy was for attacking f7. I was talking about how Barnes' Opening leaves f2 vulnerable to attack. Although, the strategy was more of a reason than a topic, so I'd consider it as off-topic discussion now, so let's stop mentioning it.

3. 4) tygxc said white can play f4 as the second move after f3 to anything except e5 and that it would work (i think?)

Playing 2. f4 after 1. f3 is not always the best idea after g5 or e3 either. Anyways, that's two turns with White not developing any pieces, so I'd say that I would probably take the time to develop first.

4. 5) i do not want to prove grobs opening as a black win | you can go to databases and engines to find the best evaluations for white in the grobs opening and maybe play those

Huh. I might try that. The engine's moves might not fit my strategy, though.

5. 6) there is always atleast one good move | if the definition of good move is "move which keeps the evaluation of the position the same", then yes | if it is "move which cannot be losing" then no, in losing positions all moves lose by definition (this may or may not include 1 g4 and i do not care about continuing that discussion)

True. If Black has just his king, and White has two queens and one king, and if no side blunders, there's no chance of a Black victory, and there is no winning moves for Black to change the game's rate.

This is an example of a tilted position, where it's a destined victory for one side if there are no blunders. It's for White in this case. I would like to say that 1. g4 is too early for a tilted game at loss for White, but tygxc argues otherwise.

6. 7) a) the knight on g1 is awkward | b) the center of the board can be attacked with enough pieces on the board (or so i've heard) | if white moves the e or d pawns then the kings position becomes weaker | not to forget the h4-e1 diagonal | c) i meant for the exchange, my mistake | d) blacks 0-0 is safe | for white, neither castling is that safe, and the center can be attacked | e) less development *and* less space, sorry | (-1) + (-1) = -2

I'm missing context. What piece of text are you responding to?

7. [game sc]

Why is b3 played? I'm a bit confused about this strategy. Shouldn't White offer Fritz's Gambit?

8. g) yes i am slightly against gambits | however, in the danish white has more space, more development, initiative and targets to attack | black is the one who might be stuck in the center | the danish offers more than the grob does

The Danish Gambit Accepted only shows its benefits after White accepts both Centre Game and the Danish Gambit. Both offer defended pawns, and Black may not want to trade pawns while losing control of the centre. It is true that the Danish Gambit Accepted variation offers more control of diagonals than Grob's Gambit Accepted does, but it's just that GGA takes less time than the DGA does.

Grob's Gambit, though, offers up a seemingly free piece, to control a diagonal with the bishop. It's a distraction for Black, stopping Black from attacking g2 or elsewhere by baiting. Fritz's Gambit's Pawn appears to be free as well, making it more likely for someone to accept the trick gambit.

9. [game sc]

This is just as if Black played the Indian Game [1. d4 Nf6]. In the 1. g4 bishop trade situation, White can attack e5 settle his horse on it. In the Indian Game, Black can attack e4 and settle his horse on it. It's just a similar situation, with switched colours, and just that both sides are missing a bishop, and White is missing a pawn, and White can ks. castle (not that I would recommend it in this situation). I don't see any major light-squared weaknesses for White, other than the diagonal with White's rook on h1, which can easily be moved.

10. h) grob and danish cant easily be compared like this

True. GGA:FGA is easier to reach than the DGA, though.

11. black is arguably the real gambiter in the grob here, with attacking chances, more development for less material | and if we're talking about the non fritz grob, then question: what compensation does white have for the pawn | i have already stated the compensation present in the danish

White gains half-control of a diagonal without counterattack by offering Grob's Gambit. As I've already said, it's not as big as the two-diagonals advantage gained by the DGA, but it's a lot easier to reach. White can pin and attack in one move in the 1. g4 situation, through Qa4.

12. 8) if i search fritz i am getting only the engine, it is probably some old master named fritz who used this opening

I'm not sure, but I think that Fritz's Gambit was named after Fritz Englund, after whom the Englund Gambit [1. d4 e5] was also named after.

13. 9) if not 0-0, then what

Again, I think that you mean O-O, not 0-0.

The only other option, of course, qs. castling (O-O-O).

What I find interesting about this game is that Black underpromoted once, and White underpromoted twice to prevent losing an advantage by the promoted pawn getting taken by a rook. The trades weren't worth it, so the pieces weren't taken. If those pawns were fully promoted instead, they would've been taken. They weren't bad moves, because White later takes a rook with one and delivers a checkmate with the other, and Black uses the knight to attack with a check. I wouldn't've thought of any of these underpromotions, so I guess I now have a new idea for my endgames.

(This is not proof that 1. g4 and the bishop trade were good. I just ran it once and will put more games on the forum later.)

#46

1) "My opponent's king will not always be in the centre. So neither will my attack be."

you need control of a part of the board to be able to attack it

this is off topic, but going back to the "reason" bit - if you play e3 after barnes you can block one method of attacking

2)"so I'd say that I would probably take the time to develop first."

agreed

barnes isnt that good

3) "I'm missing context. What piece of text are you responding to"

PGN: [1. g4 d5 2. g2 Bxg4 3. c4 dxc4 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8] start here in #42

4)"Why is b3 played? I'm a bit confused about this strategy. Shouldn't White offer Fritz's Gambit?"

you mentioned it in "i have other good scenarios"

5)"The Danish Gambit Accepted only shows its benefits after White accepts both Centre Game and the Danish Gambit."

black right

not accepting centre game is... bad (you allowed white to get e4 and d4)

declining danish gambit is possible but the game just continues

6)"it's just that GGA takes less time than the DGA does."

sure, but it has less advantages from what i can see

7)"to control a diagonal with the bishop."

1 g3 does that without sacrifice

8)" Fritz's Gambit's Pawn appears to be free as well, making it more likely for someone to accept the trick gambit."

as i mentioned above, black has compensation for the material

9)"I don't see any major light-squared weaknesses for White, other than the diagonal with White's rook on h1, which can easily be moved.

h3

also, the h pawn itself is isolated

the traded black bishop also tends to be the bad bishop

10)"White gains half-control of a diagonal without counterattack by offering Grob's Gambit. As I've already said, it's not as big as the two-diagonals advantage gained by the DGA, but it's a lot easier to reach. White can pin and attack in one move in the 1. g4 situation, through Qa4."

1 g3, again

its easier to reach, but even e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 d3 lines white gains some central lines for a pawn (more compensation than in the grob)

and, Qa4 where

11)"Again, I think that you mean O-O, not 0-0.

The only other option, of course, qs. castling (O-O-O)."

0-0 also denotes castling 

and queenside castling there is c4 in fritz lines and otherwise it just takes time to prepare

____

from my pov you think too highly of the grob gambit (and vice versa i assume) which is the main opinion difference here

the underpromotion thing is interesting but flawed

when a promoted pawn is immediately captured, its a trade of the capturing piece and the pawn

you can also think of it like this:

white gains *value of promoted piece*-1 points

then he gains (or loses if its negative) *value of capturing piece*-*value of promoted piece* points

as you can see, if these two happen one after another, its just *value of capturing piece*-1 points gained by white

or if black doesnt capture, *value of promoted piece*-1 points

if the value of the promoted piece is larger, then white will gain *value of capturing piece*-1 points if black captures (correct option)

if it is lower, white will gain *value of promoted piece*-1 points if black doesnt capture (right option as the value of the promoted piece is lower by definition, and makes this option worse for white)

@47

Just play Gotham chess openings lol. There's a reason why I'm 1800

To Ilampohzhil25,

1. you need control of a part of the board to be able to attack it

Well, that just means that I just need to control where the king is, right?

2. this is off topic, but going back to the "reason" bit - if you play e3 after barnes you can block one method of attacking

True. But e3 alone (van't Kruijs' Opening) is more productive than 1. f3 ... 2. e3, right? Because White's queen and horse have their development limited by the pawn on f3.

3. you mentioned it in "i have other good scenarios"

I don't remember and can't find where I said that, but I guess I just forgot where I said it in this forum. Did I just say that I had other good scenarioes, or did I actually list scenarioes?

4. not accepting centre game is... bad (you allowed white to get e4 and d4)

Well, what if someone doesn't like playing the King's Pawn Game? What if someone plays the Scandinavian Defence, or the Sicilian Defence, or Nimsowitsch's Defence? At which point you can't reach the Danish Gambit. To Grob's Opening, most people play d5 or e5 in response, which makes it a lot easier to play Grob's Gambit or play this Scandi-like situation [1. g4 e5 2. d4]. Most of the time, responses are more similar to Grob's Opening but vary more to the KPO.

5. 1 g3 does that without sacrifice

I kind of like playing the Lasker Simul Special as a response to the Hungarian Opening. I'm not sure if the Lasker Simul Special is some kind of joke or some bad move to show off, but if White fianchettoes the kingside bishop, I just threaten the pawn in front with [2. Bg2 h4]. If White takes it, I take it with the rook with [3. gxh4 Rxh4] (I know it sounds beginnerish, but I usually don't kingside castle so it works for me). If White kicks with [4. Nf3], I just play [4. ... Rh5]. White can't kick it again in less than two moves, so I like using that time to develop.

If White takes the time to develop with Nf3 instead of playing gxh4, I just kick with h3.

6. as i mentioned above, black has compensation for the material

Black has a material advantage directly after accepting Fritz's Gambit, but loses it right after 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3. What's Black's compensation for losing a rook (otherwise just being a pawn down)? If I missed where you mentioned the compensation, though, that's my bad.

7. h3 | also, the h pawn itself is isolated | the traded black bishop also tends to be the bad bishop

a. h3 isn't particularly vulnerable to attack in this situation, since the light-squared bishops were traded.

b. I do admit that the h-file pawn is quite vulnerable if Black forces or tricks White into moving the horse on f3 or the rook on h1. But something would have to pull it away, and I can't think of anything that pulls either piece away that doesn't involve a sacrifice that nullifies the point advantage of taking h2.

c. Could you define "bad bishop"? Does it refer to trapped bishops, or something else? I'm not sure if I got the definition right.

8. 1 g3, again | its easier to reach, but even e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 d3 lines white gains some central lines for a pawn (more compensation than in the grob) | and, Qa4 where

a. Again, Lasker Simul Special strategy.

b. Advance Variation of the Danish Gambit Declined? Honestly, I haven't been a fan of declining gambits with advance variation, just because I feel like I can use that time for something else. That move could've been used for more development, but instead, d3 just puts that pawn under threat.

c. Unfinished sentence?

9. 0-0 also denotes castling | and queenside castling there is c4 in fritz lines and otherwise it just takes time to prepare

a. Huh. I thought that castling notation only used O-O, not 0-0. Thanks for the information.

b. In Fritz's Gambit lines, White can play Nc3 or Na3 to protect c2.

c. from my pov you think too highly of the grob gambit (and vice versa i assume) which is the main opinion difference here

Well, from my point of view, the King's Pawn Game is also thought too highly of, as Black's pawn can get threatened quickly. With the same logic, I would also say that that's also a vulnerability of the KPO itself.

Black would not trade a rook for a bishop in most situations. That's a loss of two points for Black.

To tygxc,

I didn't mean to use that game as an argument point. I just wanted to say that the game ended out very interesting with opposite-sided castling and three instances of underpromotion. Sure, it might turn out differently on your end with your chess engine, but I was just saying that it was interesting.

I admit now that it was kind of an off-topic mention, so let's stop talking about it now. It's more of a "this game I ran was interesting" than a "this move set is good because...". Anyways, I can't support my argument with just one game run by a chess engine.

To XXX-101,

What's a Gotham chess opening?

Just to steer us back on topic, let's stop talking solely about how Grob's Opening is bad. It may be sub-optimal, sure, but I'd appreciate some conversations on whether Barnes' Opening is any better.

Also, just in case someone else comments, I will ignore forum posts that say against using either opening, since the topic is for comparing either opening. I don't really want to use too much of my time on writing a short response to multiple people saying that both openings are bad and that I shouldn't play either.

What does stockfish think of white's first move ?

g4 is the worst move, f3 the second worst

@52

"I can't support my argument with just one game run by a chess engine"
++ Yes, you can. If you find a line that draws or wins for white after 1 g4?,
then it is up to black to find an improvement that wins. That is how chess analysis works.

1)"Well, that just means that I just need to control where the king is, right?"

you may/may not do that in your opening or when playing against the barnes or grob

this part is kind of irrelevant though

2)"True. But e3 alone (van't Kruijs' Opening) is more productive than 1. f3 ... 2. e3, right? Because White's queen and horse have their development limited by the pawn on f3."

yes, it is

as i have already said, barnes isnt a good opening

in the barnes, your best scenario is a worse version of some other opening in some way

in the grob, it is a completely unique opening which is probably worse than the barnes, but its uniqueness gives a reason to play it over other openings 

3)"Did I just say that I had other good scenarioes, or did I actually list scenarioes?"

you mentioned the b3 line as one other good scenario (an example)

this doesnt matter much though

4 a)"Well, what if someone doesn't like playing the King's Pawn Game?"

then why would they play 1...e5

b)"What if someone plays the Scandinavian Defence, or the Sicilian Defence, or Nimsowitsch's Defence? At which point you can't reach the Danish Gambit."

this isnt relevant to the discussion of how good the grob and danish are

also, if black doesnt go d5 (or d6), grob isnt a gambit and white gets only some control of the diagonal anyway (and his kingside is somewhat damaged, and queenside castling takes time)

c)"or play this Scandi-like situation [1. g4 e5 2. d4]. "

i have never heard anyone advocating for this

g4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 d5 looks like good play and i just ask, what is the pawn on g4 doing?

this is a reverse scandinavian with g4 just added, almost like a waiting move

d)"Most of the time, responses are more similar to Grob's Opening but vary more to the KPO."

this is because grobs opening is rarer and people tend to stick to their white opening, but black can do many many things vs the grob (a c6 d5 system in particular negates the bishop on g2)

5)"

"I kind of like playing the Lasker Simul Special as a response to the Hungarian Opening. I'm not sure if the Lasker Simul Special is some kind of joke or some bad move to show off, but if White fianchettoes the kingside bishop, I just threaten the pawn in front with [2. Bg2 h4]. If White takes it, I take it with the rook with [3. gxh4 Rxh4] (I know it sounds beginnerish, but I usually don't kingside castle so it works for me). If White kicks with [4. Nf3], I just play [4. ... Rh5]. White can't kick it again in less than two moves, so I like using that time to develop.

If White takes the time to develop with Nf3 instead of playing gxh4, I just kick with h3"

my incredibly funny (in this context) other suggestion for white after 2...h4 is 3 g4

black has played h5 h4 which justifies it for me

the line you give, white is ahead in development anyway

6)"Black has a material advantage directly after accepting Fritz's Gambit, but loses it right after 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3. What's Black's compensation for losing a rook (otherwise just being a pawn down)? If I missed where you mentioned the compensation, though, that's my bad."

you did miss it, but i will mention it again

white has dubious king safety, less development, less space and black has a safe king if he kingside castles

7 a)"h3 isn't particularly vulnerable to attack in this situation, since the light-squared bishops were traded"

i can imagine blacks queen attacking through that line

b)"I do admit that the h-file pawn is quite vulnerable if Black forces or tricks White into moving the horse on f3 or the rook on h1. But something would have to pull it away, and I can't think of anything that pulls either piece away that doesn't involve a sacrifice that nullifies the point advantage of taking h2."

the rook h1 is very inactive there and usually goes somewhere else on its own

and then the knight f3 is the only defender and it can be lured using one of black's knights, or white might move it somewhere or trade it; knights are usually busy pieces

c)"Could you define "bad bishop"?"

in a lot of positions one side has most of its pawns on dark squares and the other has the pawns on light squares

the bishop that has the same color as the square of its side's pawns is called a 'bad bishop'

there are many levels of badness ranging from not that important to very important and here, while it isnt that important, the black light bishop is either locked in or if it is moved outside it can be attacked by whites knights

8)"Advance Variation of the Danish Gambit Declined? Honestly, I haven't been a fan of declining gambits with advance variation, just because I feel like I can use that time for something else. That move could've been used for more development, but instead, d3 just puts that pawn under threat."

thing is if black does anything else except accepting or Qe7 (pinning the e pawn) white can take back the d pawn and has 2 central pawns

meanwhile after d3 Bxd3 black isnt that much behind in development and white has an annoying pawn c3

"Unfinished sentence?"

sorry, i was asking where were you talking about Qa4

9)"In Fritz's Gambit lines, White can play Nc3 or Na3 to protect c2."

Na3?

you want to keep the knight passive to defend c2?

if white plays defensively black can attack (like in a gambit, which he logically is the one doing at this point)

10)"Well, from my point of view, the King's Pawn Game is also thought too highly of, as Black's pawn can get threatened quickly. With the same logic, I would also say that that's also a vulnerability of the KPO itself."

i would disagree, saying that black can defend it just as quickly

this is very offtopic however

_____

seeing your last statement, look above for my answer to 2

objectively, the barnes might be better, being easier to consolidate to a slightly worse version of another opening; but the grob has uniquer positions which might make it appealing to some people

this also gives it more use practically, with a subsection of people doing well with it and it fitting their own style (as compared to the barnes where i cant see a unique style of player who would want to play it)

To tygxc,

1. "I can't support my argument with just one game run by a chess engine" ++ Yes, you can. If you find a line that draws or wins for white after 1 g4?, then it is up to black to find an improvement that wins. That is how chess analysis works.

Well, moves are good if their move branches end in majority wins for that player. But, chess engines can't see every single end of every move branch, so chess engines usually use material advantages to rate moves. Sometimes, more than one move gains the same amount of material at a certain depth, but may lose more material later on.

Therefore, we can either get a true-and-pure win percentage by checking every end of a move branch, or we can run multiple games to try each move. But, you suggest that we don't need to do either... and yet you still ran a different game ending with a seven-men endgame table base win for Black.

Anyways, since engines use material advantages to calculate ratings, Grob's Opening gets a very low rating at lower depths, since it almost immediately sacrifices a pawn or loses time and other material through defending it.

It's like an immediate gambit offer for positional advantages, like all other gambits, but a lot earlier. I would say that it's still as good as most gambits are. Lots of people like gambits (the Queen's Gambit and Centre Game are two of the most popular), but there are some gambits on the side that I like, such as Grob's Gambit, Fritz's Gambit, and some others. Sure, there are some worse gambits, such as the Irish Gambit, and maybe the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and Englund's Gambit, but there are lots of good gambits too.

To Ilampozhil25,

1. you may/may not do that in your opening or when playing against the barnes or grob | this part is kind of irrelevant though

Grob's Opening is an opening that I like to use against players who really like to ks. castle. I like to attack their kingside area after they castle, and threaten their kingside horse right after it develops.

2. this isnt relevant to the discussion of how good the grob and danish are

I think it is. Grob's Gambit is a lot easier to reach than the Danish Gambit, because of the many possible and popular responses there are to the KPO, than the two most common responses to Grob's Opening (d5/e5). I would win all the time if people played [1.f3 ... 2. g4] as their opening all the time, but I don't find many people playing it at all (and most probably nobody's playing it intentionally). The benefits of the Danish Gambit get nullified as soon as someone does not play the King's Pawn Game.

3. also, if black doesnt go d5 (or d6), grob isnt a gambit and white gets only some control of the diagonal anyway (and his kingside is somewhat damaged, and queenside castling takes time)

It is true that queenside castling at minimum takes two more turns than kingside castling does. But, if Black does not threaten White's pawn on g4, White can use that to control the kingside a bit more, motivating Black to castle queenside.

Anyways, if Black plays d6, White can still play Bg2, and doom Black's a1 rook, if Black accepts or does not block the diagonal.

4. g4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 d5 looks like good play and i just ask, what is the pawn on g4 doing? | this is a reverse scandinavian with g4 just added, almost like a waiting move

Again, the pawn is there to try to establish a grip on the kingside. Sure, it can be easily taken, but it can also easily be defended as well. The pawn's additional grip on the kingside can help an attack there if Black decides to kingside castle.

5. the line you give, white is ahead in development anyway

Black can still develop quickly. White has one more piece developed, (potentially two after White's next turn) but still can't attack Black's rook in less than two moves. If White decides to ks. castle and not attack the rook, Black can use it to threaten checkmate, or at least sneak in some places, or block pawns.

Anyways, this strategy line is not the best, since I've only played against the Hungarian Opening three times, and played the Lasker Simul Special only twice. I haven't had anyone play the Hungarian Opening against me since then.

6. you did miss it, but i will mention it again | white has dubious king safety, less development, less space and black has a safe king if he kingside castles

I do believe that it is true that White's king is slightly vulnerable in its position, and must try to kingside castle sometime soon at least. But, I think that White is able to catch up on turn 7 after kicking Black's bishop.

Sorry for missing it.

7. i can imagine blacks queen attacking through that line | the rook h1 is very inactive there and usually goes somewhere else on its own | and then the knight f3 is the only defender and it can be lured using one of black's knights, or white might move it somewhere or trade it; knights are usually busy pieces

What does Black's queen accomplish by settling on h3? The rook can easily be moved to g1, and the pawn is still defended by the horse. Anything that I can think of that is a good trade for White to accept nullifies gaining the pawn on h2.

8. sorry, i was asking where were you talking about Qa4

I was talking about playing Qa4 as a viable development move to play after Fritz's Gambit Accepted, 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3 Bf5, because of how it threatened Black's pawn on c4, and also pinned Black's horse on d7. I don't remember mentioning it anywhere else.

9. Na3? | you want to keep the knight passive to defend c2?

It's just that Na3 also threatens Black's pawn on c4 after Fritz's Gambit Accepted. The horse is in a position to accomplish two different tasks, so as soon as one becomes unavailable, it can do the other. I don't think that that's completely passive, but it might not be as active as usual, because of how it stands like a guard in its position.

10. i would disagree, saying that black can defend it just as quickly | this is very offtopic however

Same with Grob's Opening. White can defend the pawn just as quickly as a threat comes. It's just that Grob's Opening's g4 pawn can't be attacked as many times as e5 or e4 can be. Grob's Opening's g4 pawn can move forward in every situation except for 1. g4 g5, so it's not as easy to trap.

11. objectively, the barnes might be better, being easier to consolidate to a slightly worse version of another opening; but the grob has uniquer positions which might make it appealing to some people | this also gives it more use practically, with a subsection of people doing well with it and it fitting their own style (as compared to the barnes where i cant see a unique style of player who would want to play it)

a. It's possible to transpose to worse or equal versions of other openings with Barnes' Opening, but the only problem with that is that your opponent might've studied the position more than you have, or you'll just be in a worse version of a normally equal setup.

b. Playing rarer openings avoids an opponent's study advantages. It isn't the main reason why I play Grob's Opening, but it is an advantage.

c. The only kinds of people I see playing Barnes' Opening are the kinds of players who stake a claim on the centre with 1. f3 ... 2. c3, players who play e4 after just to defend it early, or those other players who use the Hammerschlag just to show off that they can play well while artificially castling. All three are strange and pretty rare, but I think that Grob's Opening is even rarer. (Has anyone ever played 1. f3 ... 2. c3 against you? For me, that's only happened once.)

I searched up who is GothamChess, and I found a chess questions video. When he was asked what the worst opening was, he responded with "I think that f3 is the worst opening, because it first of all doesn't develop any pieces, makes your king vulnerable, and blocks the natural position of your kingside knight.".

@53

"Grob's Opening gets a very low rating at lower depths"
++ And an even lower rating at higher depths.

"there are lots of good gambits"
++ Queen's Gambit and Catalan for white, Two Knights Defense and Marshall Attack for black.

To tygxc,

1. "Grob's Opening gets a very low rating at lower depths" ++ And an even lower rating at higher depths.

At higher depths that I've tried (previously mentioned 2048 depth), Grob's Opening gets a -0.2 rating (White starts with +0.2 advantage), and usually draws. It's because Grob's Gambit's pawn sacrifice benefits only show up later. I would rather not cook my Chromebook again on Stockfish at depth 2048, though.

2. "there are lots of good gambits" ++ Queen's Gambit and Catalan for white, Two Knights Defense and Marshall Attack for black.

I don't understand how the QGD: Catalan Opening, the Italian Game: Two Knights' Defence, and the Ruy López Opening: Marshall Attack are related to this. I was talking about good gambits, not good openings and good defences, so please explain what this has to do with the topic.

I know that I said that chess engines were not perfect, but I think they certainly are good enough, and I wanted to try the analysis method that tygxc said.